Phariseeism

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

Amen! And that includes the 5 fold ministry of Eph 4:11 that we are to submit ourselves to and obey. Just as Jesus instructed the multitude and his disciples to observe and do to those who were sitting in Moses' seat, so we now in the NT are to observe and do what those in spiritual authority over us bid us to observe and do. That includes obedience to scripture and that includes things that are in obedience to principles taught in scripture such as holiness.

Acts 15 is such a good example because a situation rose up that was not covered by Jesus. Paul and Barnabas were already in a place of spiritual authority but they recognized the need to take a question regarding a rule to the rest of the leadership in the NT church - the elders and apostles at Jerusalem.

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul didn't receive the gospel by others in spiritual authority before him telling him about it or giving it to him, but he got it from Jesus himself by revelation. Although I'm sure that his gospel was confirmed afterwards by those who were before him. So Paul got some things by revelation but he also had the words of Jesus and he had the other apostles and elders to share things with.

But in spite of that, Paul recognized a situation came up that he did not have revelation for about what to do about it, but he did have the words of Jesus in Matt 18 where Jesus told his future leadership about them being able to bind/loose some things in earth in agreement and the promise that if they did so, that Jesus himself in response to them first binding/loosing some things in earth, would bind/loose them in heaven.

Imagine that, Jesus knew that he would leave the earth and would entrust the managing and leading of his church on earth to men. He also trusted them to be able to bind/loose somethings on earth as well.

So, in Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem and raised the issue, they discussed it, and James was the one who suggested a recommendation which became the rule. Men bound/loosed some things that God showed that he was behind them...

It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost.

God indicated by his Spirit in man somehow that what James had suggested and the rest agreed to, he was behind it. What leadership on earth bound/loosed, Jesus bound/loosed in heaven.

Incidentally, they came up with more rules than the original question of circumcising the gentiles.

Act 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

The decrees were ordained - bound/loosed - of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

decree - From the base of G1380; a law (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical): - decree, ordinance.

And what did Paul say about keeping ordinances/traditions whether they were by WORD or epistles...

1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Imagine that, Paul expected obedience to what they had been taught by those who were in a place of spiritual authority over them whether it was in WORD only OR written in an epistle.

What was Paul's attitude towards those who didn't want to keep the ordinances (1 Cor 11:2) but were contentious?

1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

1Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
1Pe 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

The apostles were so concerned about the church being subject to EVERY ordinance of those who had authority over them outside of the church, then how much more are we to be in submission to those who have spiritual authority over us in the church of the Almighty God.

If God was so concerned about our witness to the world about submitting to every ordinance of man outside of church, don't you think God would be concerned about our witness to the world about submitting to every ordinance of those who have spiritual authority over us IN his church?

Did Jesus say words to this effect? Yes he did...

Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

God bless.

I appreciate the time you took to write the above post.

The problem I have with going along with what you have said is that some traditions are useless-- powerless ways of men that have no place in "The Church". The "True Jesus Church" baptizes their converts forward and believes that if done any other way, it is incorrect and thus, vain. Southern Gospel music is the traditional Christian music for many folks-- does it mean that for churches in the south, they should only allow Southern Gospel music in their churches?

Some traditions are hateful, encouraging prejudice, even violence-- but I won't go there.

Jesus criticized the Pharisees for teaching the "traditions of men as commands" from God. This is NOT what a Pastor is supposed to do. When he does this, he scatters the sheep.

Some sheep that Jesus Christ suffered, bled and died for are now already devoured by wolves, dying in the wilderness they wandered into upon the realization that there human Shepherd were feeding them junk instead of milk and meat.

Sure one could make the argument that the sheep who wander away are rebellious and dumb, heaping destruction to themselves as they wander. However, that still does not negate the fact that it probably was an unwise and carnal-minded human Shepherd that drove that dumb sheep away from his flock in the first place!

[tv1a]

To put it in today's terms, the pharisees preached the evils of television while ignoring the evils of the internet.

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

They were in a position of spiritual authority in the OT still. They were hypocrits because they said and did not. Our righteousness is to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees - they said and did not, but Jesus said to observe and do what they bid you. Those who have a right relationship with God on the inside can submit to God-given authority and obey. Those who do not have a right relationship with God seem to have a problem with submitting and/or doing.

In the NT, the Pastor is in a place of spiritual authority and as Hebrews 13 says 3 times in the same chapter, we are to obey those who have the rule over us.

While they were still in the OT, Jesus told them because they sit in Moses' seat, they were to observe and do what they bid them.

[tv1a]

Don't forget with all the excuses made for condoning legalism, Paul condemns legalism and compares it to witchcraft in Galatians 3:1/

[theoldpaths]

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

That verse says nothing about anti-biblical traditions; and in no way does it justify anti-biblical traditions.

What it does show is that there were traditions/precepts/laws/ordinances that they were taught by those in spiritual authority that were not in writing, but were only verbal, and that they were expected to obey them.

Kinda reminds me of the following...

Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Again if TOP is right I have to ask why don't they all go back to being Trinitarians even Roman Catholics? Why not look back on our "spiritual fathers" to left the Trinity as rebellious backsliders? Don't DO as the Trinitarians did but obey them.

Because trinitarianism was not the original doctrine and the RCC was not the original church.

Trinitarians and the RCC's are NOT Apostolic spiritual fathers regardless of what religious leaders of today will tell you.

IGNATIUS
========
"Ignatius must be said to be monarchian" - Virginia Corwin, St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960, p. 140

Loofs and Kroymann were historians who were convinced that Ignatius was a Modalist as well - Jules LeBreton and Jacques Zeiler, The History of the Primitive Church 3, trans. Ernest C. Messenger, London: Burns, Oates and Washburne Ltd., 1949, p. 600

Ignatius seems to have had the confidence of the apostles, for he is said to have been appointed pastor of the church at Antioch by John in 67ad, and he succeeded Evodius, who had been appointed by Peter in 40ad

Since Ignatius was monarchian, then John must've been monarchian as well since he appointed Ignatius pastor of Antioch

Since Ignatius succeeded Evodius who was appointed by Peter, then we can assume that Evodius and Peter were monarchian as well

Ignatius letters show no evidence of any teaching on a trinity. We do not find the words "trinity", "three persons", etc., for Ignatius was monarchian and not a trinitarian

POLYCARP
========
Polycarp was a disciple of John
John appointed Ignatius who was monarchian
Therefore its reasonable to assume that Polycarp was monarchian as well
Ignatius and Polycarp had respect for each other and corresponded
Ignatius and Polycarp shared the same teaching both being familiar with John

[theoldpaths]

Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mar 7:10 For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
Mar 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
Mar 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do aught for his father or his mother;
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The big difference is that they layed aside the commandments of God. The word of God told them to honor their father and mother, but they created a tradition that essentially wiped out that commandment and put in its place something that directly contradicted it.

Apostolic holiness principles do NOT do that.

Luk 12:1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trod one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

The leaven of the Pharisees is hypocrisy...

Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Mat 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Although Jesus bid the multitudes AND his DISCIPLES to observe and do, because of the previous teaching we know that they were NOT to do the traditions that layed aside the commandments of God with a tradition that directly contradicted scripture.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

I find it interesting that because the Pharisees were sitting in a place of authority - Moses' seat -, Jesus told the multitudes and his disciples that whatsoever they bid them to observe, they were to observe and do.

However nowadays, some are reluctant to observe and do what a Pastor will bid to observe and do.

TheOldPaths....please consider this scenario and answer a few questions for me if you don't mind:

John has been going to First Apostolic Church for 2 years, and has been praying for the Lord to give him a godly wife. He likes Denise, a fellow member of his church. Denise is a dedicated sister who loves the Lord. John and Denise both sing on the church's choir. After going out/dating for several few months, John and Denise are in love. After being prayerful about the situation, they feel it it the Lord's will for them to be together.

Before officially proposing marriage, John decides to seek his pastor's blessing. (John happens to be white. Denise is black.) The pastor disapproves of John marrying Denise, and lets him know that tradtionally at First Apostolic, interracial marriage is frowned upon, and always has been. The pastor insists he's not racist, but he just believes that people should "stick to their own kind". So he forbids John to marry Denise simply because of her race.

So...

1...Is this tradition ok with you?

2...Does a pastor have authority to order one saved, Godly member of his church not to marry another godly saint?

3...Is this pastor in line with the Bible by prohibitiing interracial marriage?

4....If John and Denise decide to get married anyway, have they commited a sin ?
-------------

I look forward to your responses.

[theoldpaths]

Too often, they can't trust themselves to walk in the New Testament liberty we have under Christ, and cant trust themselves to have he discipline needed to live right before God, so they welcome it when an ultra-strict church and pastor puts the yoke upon their necks.

Luk 12:1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trod one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Mat 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

The difference is that unlike the Pharisee's leaven which was hypocrisy who said and DID NOT, Apostolic holiness principles taught by Pastors are also OBEYED BY THE PASTORS.

What kind of a witness would it be for a Pastor to demand something of his flock that he himself would not by example do the same thing? That would be hypocritical.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

TheOldPaths....please consider this scenario and answer a few questions for me if you don't mind:

John has been going to First Apostolic Church for 2 years, and has been praying for the Lord to give him a godly wife. He likes Denise, a fellow member of his church. Denise is a dedicated sister who loves the Lord. John and Denise both sing on the church's choir. After going out/dating for several few months, John and Denise are in love. After being prayerful about the situation, they feel it it the Lord's will for them to be together.

Before officially proposing marriage, John decides to seek his pastor's blessing. (John happens to be white. Denise is black.) The pastor disapproves of John marrying Denise, and lets him know that tradtionally at First Apostolic, interracial marriage is frowned upon, and always has been. The pastor insists he's not racist, but he just believes that people should "stick to their own kind". So he forbids John to marry Denise simply because of her race.

So...

1...Is this tradition ok with you?

2...Does a pastor have authority to order one saved, Godly member of his church not to marry another godly saint?

3...Is this pastor in line with the Bible by prohibitiing interracial marriage?

4....If John and Denise decide to get married anyway, have they commited a sin ?
-------------

I look forward to your responses.

Ummmmmm.... You know how much some people hate hypotheticals.

But I am curious as to how some of the old stalwarts would honestly this answer these questions as well.

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BTW
1Co 11:2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

Traditions. A.T. Robertson
Paradosis (tradition) from paradidōmi (paredōka, first aorist active indicative) is an old word and merely something handed on from one to another. The thing handed on may be bad as in Mat_15:2. (which see) and contrary to the will of God (Mar_7:8.) or it may be wholly good as here. There is a constant conflict between the new and the old in science, medicine, law, theology. The obscurantist rejects all the new and holds to the old both true and untrue. New truth must rest upon old truth and is in harmony with it.

"Tradition" here simply means a transmission or passing down of TRUTH. Not merely "traditions we've been doing for the last 50 years biblical or not". Sorry guys but you are out of gas

What did Paul pass on to them?
1Co 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
1Co 15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
"The gospel I preached", "the word I preached", "in accordance with the scriptures", "That Christ died for our sins".

That he was buried, raised on the third day....."in accordance with the scriptures"

Folks what you see going on in this forum is a mis use of scriptures to support the idea that ANYTHING they preach must be obeyed regardless of if it is bible or not. But Paul when he refers to the gospel NEVER has in mind his own inventions but has in mind the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ, in accordance to Scriptures.

If you think that the only thing that Paul wanted to be handed down to be obeyed was just the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then you are sadly mistaken.

1Co 4:17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timothy, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

Paul's ways were in Christ and was taught in every church.

Act 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

Part of the ordinances that they were expected to hand down and obey were the ordinances of the apostles and elders that were decided at the conference at Jerusalem.

As Jesus gave his future church leadership - MEN - the ability to make binding decisions that Jesus himself said he would bind, it goes without saying that because those decisions are BINDING, that they would be transmitted to be kept and obeyed.

Incidentally, who is A.T. Robertson?